LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT - SFBOS.org

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

City Hall �� 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 �� San Francisco, California 94102-4689

Telephone (415) 554-5184 �� Fax (415) 554-5163 �� TDD (415) 554-5227

www.sfgov.org/legislative_analyst

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

To: Members of the Board of Supervisors

From: Gabe Cabrera with Fan-Wa Wong and Jeffrey Haddad, Office of the LegislativeAnalyst (OLA)

Date: September 12, 2008

Re: San Francisco Zoo (BOS File No. 080149) (OLA No. 001-08)

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a motion introduced by SupervisorMcGoldrick asking the OLA to analyze the different types of zoos in the world; to discuss bestpractices in terms of animal welfare, education and conservation; and to compare the SanFrancisco Zoo in terms of best practices.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The San Francisco Zoo (the “Zoo”) is presently the subject of intense debate. Local animalwelfare groups, such as In Defense of Animals, claim that the Zoo’s management and oversightregarding animal welfare is inadequate and that it should be transitioned to an animal rescuefacility whose goal would be to provide the best possible quality of life for animals. Indeed,Supervisor Daly has already introduced legislation (File No. 080818) to begin this transitionprocess. The Zoo and its supporters counter that the Zoo has always made animal welfare apriority and that it is making progress in modernizing its exhibits.

This report compares the Zoo’s current practices in the areas of animal welfare, education andconservation against standards and policies promulgated by the USDA1, two nationalAssociations of Zoos and Aquariums2, a regional group3 and the World Association of Zoos andAquariums. It presents the “Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare” in such a way that the Zoo’skeeping of animals can be assessed.4 This report also identifies zoos around the world that havereceived the majority of their respective association’s awards for achievement in animal welfare,education or conservation. These include the Bronx Zoo, Calgary Zoo (Canada), Chester Zoo(UK), Columbus Zoo, Pretoria Zoo (S. Africa) and San Diego Zoo. Each of these zoos isprofiled in Appendix A.

1 The United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA) enforces the Animal Welfare Act, which requires, amongother things, minimum standards of care and treatment for animals exhibited to the public.2 The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (the AZA) in the US and the Canadian Association of Zoos andAquariums (the CAZA)3 The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (the EAZA)4 These freedoms (or general guidelines) originated in the 1960’s in the UK to protect farm animals. Since then,governments and animal organizations worldwide have used them to assess the welfare of wild animals in captivity.

2

Major findings

Most of the San Francisco Zoo’s current practices compare favorably against the USDA andassociations’ standards. However, there are some notable exceptions:

• Regarding animal welfare, the Zoo meets standards on veterinary care, handling of animals,environmental enrichment programs, feeding, watering and sanitation. However, it needs tospeed up progress in modernizing older exhibits. Some of the Zoo’s animals may besuffering physically and mentally because their enclosures do not meet contemporary zoostandards.

• The Zoo meets most standards on education, but there is room for improvement in someareas. Most notably, it does not have a written education plan with goals, objectives,strategies or performance measures. Without a plan, the Zoo cannot accurately assess theimpact of its education efforts.

• Regarding conservation, the Zoo meets standards involving its mission, on-site conservationstaff, Species Survival Plans and other conservation programs. However, it needs to developand implement some form of regular evaluation of its conservation efforts, and finalize awritten conservation plan (akin to an education plan), which is currently under review by theZoo’s Board of Directors Conservation Committee.

Highest priority recommendation

We offer several recommendations throughout this report for improving the Zoo. If the Board ofSupervisors agrees with them, it can require the Zoo to implement them via the City’s Recreationand Park Department (RPD) and Commission, both of which oversee the Zoo. Note that theJoint Zoo Committee advises the Recreation and Park Commission on zoo-related matters. Itconsists of three members of the Recreation and Park Commission and three members of theZoo’s Board of Directors. Lastly, we are not zoo experts, nor do we claim to be, so anindependent consultant should be hired to properly address the major findings regarding animalwelfare in this report. We believe that this approach would go furthest to benefit the animals thatthe Zoo keeps and the public that it serves.

BACKGROUND

The following contains some basic information about the Zoo’s management and organizationalstructures, acreage, animal collection, attendance and annual operating expenses.

Management Structure - The City owns the Zoo and its animals while the nonprofit SanFrancisco Zoological Society (the “Society”) operates it and cares for the animals pursuant to aLease and Management Agreement entered into between the City and the Society in 1993. ThisAgreement, which originally was to expire on June 30, 1998, automatically extends forsuccessive periods of five years, not to exceed 99 years. A five-year extension was automaticallygranted in 2007 and extends until 2013.

3

Organizational Structure - Under the management of the Society, the Zoo is organized into thefollowing operating departments:- Animal Care and Conservation- Education and Animal Resource Center- Finance- Human Resources- Development- Marketing and Public Relations- Operations

Acreage - The Zoo consists of approximately 100 acres of indoor and outdoor animal exhibits,gardens, multiple building structures, walkways and public gathering spaces.

Animal Collection - It currently houses 753 individual animals and 203 species, includingmammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates (insects).

Attendance - The Zoo hosted 1,093,000 million visitors in FY 06-07, down from an all-timepeak of 1.3 million in FY 83-84 when it opened a giant panda exhibit.5

Budget - In 2007, the Zoo’s operating expenses totaled $18,702,586. There is no budget lineitem for animal welfare. Instead Zoo staff advised us that the line items for “Animals,Collections and Exhibits” and “Children’s Zoo” represent spending on animal welfare at the Zoo.These items totaled approximately $10.3 million (or 55% of the Zoo’s total operating expenses).

Also in 2007, the Zoo spent $891,459 (or 4.8% of its total operating expenses) on education and$183,286 (or 1%) on conservation. This 1% spent on conservation excludes staff and otheroperating costs.

For a historical comparison of the Zoo’s total operating expenses from 2003 to 2007, seeAppendix B.

TYPES OF ZOOS

Urban zoos – These zoos are often owned by the public, funded by governments and run byzoological societies. Most of them are relatively small in size and based within cities orurbanized areas. Some of them are involved in captive breeding, research and educationprograms. The 100-acre San Francisco Zoo is an urban zoo.

Open-range zoos (or wild animal parks) – Fewer species are exhibited in open-range zoos thanin urban zoos, but they are mostly kept in large open enclosures. The 1,800-acre San Diego WildAnimal Park is an open-range zoo.

Roadside zoos – Roadside zoos are usually located on rural roads and on highways outside ofcities. They are privately owned businesses that keep relatively small collections of animals,usually confined in homemade cages and enclosures.

5 San Francisco Zoo, Master Plan Up-date [August 2007]. p.15

4

Safari park zoos – A safari park is a zoo-like commercial tourist attraction where visitors candrive in their own vehicles and observe the wildlife, rather than viewing animals in cages orsmall enclosures.

Rescue zoos (or sanctuaries) – These facilities primarily house unwanted or rescued animalsand they are often set up and funded by animal welfare supporters. Their main mission is toprovide the best possible quality of life for animals. Examples include the Folsom City Zoo andAustin Zoo and Animal Sanctuary.

Specialized zoos – Some zoos specialize on specific groups of animals. These include aviariesand bird parks, reptile zoos, butterfly gardens and insectariums.

ANALYSIS

The following compares the San Francisco Zoo’s current practices in the areas of animal welfare,education and conservation against the standards and policies promulgated by the USDA andfour Associations of Zoos and Aquariums.

For a complete summary of these standards, see Appendix C.

Animal Welfare

� Veterinary care

StandardsThe USDA requires all zoos in the US to employ a full-time staff veterinarian, while theAZA and CAZA only recommends that they do so. The EAZA and WAZA simplyrequire veterinary care, regardless of whether it is provided by full-time staff or aconsultant.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. It currently employs two full-time staff veterinarians andhas a Doctor Advisory Board, consisting of 30 veterinary and human medical specialists,to promote better understanding of animal sciences. Notably, in 1999, the BudgetAnalyst found that veterinary care at the Zoo is “excellent” and that general care is“good.”6

� Handling of Animals

StandardsThe USDA and associations require zookeepers to have “experience with” or “knowledgeof” species under their care.

6 San Francisco Budget Analyst Office, Performance Audit of the San Francisco Zoo [January 1999]. p. 2.

5

Current PracticeBased only upon our review of the current position descriptions at the Zoo, the Zoo meetsthese standards. For instance, animal keepers must have one year paid experienceworking with a ranch, farm or exotic animals, and a degree from an institution offeringspecialized animal management programs with a hands-on component. Senior animalkeepers who supervise subordinate staff must have additional knowledge, skills andabilities.

� Physical Facilities

StandardsHousing facilities must be “structurally sound” and “in good repair,” according to theUSDA’s standards. The associations address disparate issues related to physicalfacilities. The AZA and CAZA advise zoos to build exhibits that replicate wild habitats,while WAZA requires areas for animals to retreat and separate (i.e., cubbing dens).

Current practiceIn 1999, the Budget Analyst found that “nearly three-fourths of the Zoo” needed to berebuilt and that “most of the older facilities are severely out of date and in a state of poormaintenance.”7 Two years earlier in 1997, San Francisco voters overwhelminglyapproved a $48 million bond measure to modernize or rebuild the Zoo.8 Since then, theZoo has completed several major capital improvement projects with bond proceeds(known as Phase II of the Zoo’s Master Plan). In 2006, the Zoo spent the last of its bondproceeds on improvements to certain animal exhibits. However, much work remains tobe done. Local animal welfare groups accuse the Zoo of mismanaging its bond proceeds,spending more on visitor facilities than on animal exhibits. In fairness to the Zoo, newvisitor facilities were listed among the proposed Phase II projects and all of them wererecognized as critical by the Zoo and others. Indeed, in 1999, the Budget Analyst foundthat the Zoo’s existing visitor facilities were “substandard and inadequate.”9 Notably, theZoo advised the OLA that inflationary costs due to unanticipated delays in the City’sissuance of bonds and other costs related to the Zoo’s compliance with ADArequirements effectively reduced by approximately 14% the amount of funds available forall Phase II projects. Today, approximately one-half of the Zoo has been rebuilt,primarily its western side, but its eastern side needs significant improvements. Othercritics accuse the Zoo of improperly designing and/or operating its animal exhibits. In aletter to the Board of Supervisors dated February 21, 2008, Peter Shroud, former SeniorCurator of the Melbourne Zoo and former Director of the Werribee Open Range Zoo,writes “the design of the [African] Savanna exhibit is highly problematic” because “thecentral public viewing area in the exhibit occupies perhaps the most sheltered part of theexhibit landscape, denying this sheltered space to the animals and forcing them into moreexposed areas.” Regarding the new Grizzly Gulch exhibit, Mr. Shroud writes that it“occupies a relatively small area” although space around it does not appear to be limited

7 1999 Performance Audit, p. 69.8 Also in 1997, the Society’s Board of Directors began a $25 million campaign to raise private funds to supportrenovation of the Zoo.9 1999 Performance Audit, p. 69.

6

and that a significant portion of it is unnecessarily “hot-wired to exclude access by thebears.” These criticisms are countered by Robert Jenkins, the Zoo’s Director of AnimalCare and Conservation, who advised the OLA that several AZA officials and “a largenumber of experienced professionals familiar with the design and operation of animalenclosures” have inspected the African Savanna and Grizzly Gulch exhibits and that “noone has made the observations referenced [by Mr. Shroud] in our draft report.” Mr.Jenkins also advised us that the Zoo has temporarily hot-wired at least one section of theGrizzly Gulch exhibit because it was damaged by the bears and that the Zoo intends torepair it in the near future. We readily admit that formulating an opinion about the Zoo’sdesign and operation of its African Savanna and Grizzly Gulch exhibits is beyond ourexpertise and scope of this legislative report. Therefore, the OLA believes that anindependent consultant should be hired to examine the current configurations of theseexhibits; to report findings regarding their design and operation; and to make specificrecommendations for improvement, if necessary.

� Space Requirements

StandardsNeither the USDA nor the associations mandate specific dimensions for animalenclosures. However, all of them state (in different ways) that enclosures must havesufficient space to allow animals to express their natural behaviors.

Current PracticeIn 2007, the authors of the Zoo’s Master Plan Up-date recommended that the Zoo“allocate sufficient space within each exhibit zone to accommodate the specific lifestylesof key iconic mega-fauna.” Whether there is sufficient space within the Zoo’s existingexhibits is unclear. Robert Atkinson, former Curator of Woburn Safari Park and Head ofthe Wildlife Department for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,believes that a number of the Zoo’s exhibits are too small. In a letter to the Board ofSupervisors dated February 27, 2008, Mr. Atkinson writes, “I cannot understand how theZoo thinks a small, bare earth enclosure with a stump in it is good enough for arhinoceros, or any animal.” He is also critical of the Zoo’s polar bear exhibit. Regardingthe polar bear that paces back and forth at the front of the exhibit, Mr. Atkinson writes,“When a wide-ranging carnivore is cooped up in a tiny barren enclosure, the frustratedbehaviors are likely to manifest themselves as stereotypies.”10 In response to thesecriticisms, the Zoo’s Director of Animal Care and Conservation advised us that the Zooand RPD are currently building a new rhinoceros exhibit that is scheduled to becompleted in the Fall 2008 and that Mr. Atkinson’s observation about the polar beardemonstrating “stereotypic” behavior ignores the fact all of the Zoo’s other bears,including 2 other polar bears, 2 spectacled bears and 2 grizzly bears, do not show thisbehavior. The Director also states that the subject polar bear is a rescued animal whomay have learned to pace elsewhere and that despite her pacing, she shows no indicationof stress or other abnormality at this time. Be that as it may, the OLA reviewed theresearch literature on applied animal behavior and discovered that although it may be

10 It has been hypothesized that stereotypies (or repetitive movements like pacing) are caused by confinement insmall enclosures.

7

impossible to give an animal the exact amount of space it occupies in the wild, animals incaptivity have the ability to adapt to a wide range of conditions without developingstereotypies, and that for each particular stress factor (in this case, limited space), eachanimal has a range, called its “normal adaptive range,” which it can tolerate and react tonormally.11 The limits of this range vary for each animal. Determining whether thesubject polar bear is living within her limits is beyond our expertise and scope of thislegislative report. Therefore, the OLA believes that an independent consultant should behired to make this determination for the subject polar bear and the Zoo’s other animals; toreport finding regarding their physical and mental health; and to make specificrecommendations, if necessary.

� Enrichment Programs

Environmental enrichment means the addition or modification of objects in a captiveanimal’s environment to stimulate species-appropriate behaviors.

StandardsAll the associations require environmental enrichment programs. The USDA has no suchrequirement.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. Under the Zoo’s Animal Training and EnrichmentProgram, animal care workers actively research and propose new forms of animalenrichment activities designed to stimulate species-specific behavior and to enhanceoverall welfare.

� Feeding, Watering and Sanitation

StandardsThe USDA and most associations have written standards regarding feeding, watering andsanitation. The USDA’s standards are the most explicit. They require zoos to providespecies-specific diets; to make drinking water available at all times or as often asnecessary to maintain the health and comfort of animals; and to routinely remove excretafrom enclosures.

Current PracticeThe Zoo appears to meet these standards. Each of the animal sections at the Zoo has a setof procedures for the operation of the work area. These are called “Primary Work AreaProcedures.” They are maintained on site at the work area and address animalidentification, nutrition, safety, operating procedures, maintenance and other importantinformation.

11 Blackshaw, J. Notes on Some Topics on Applied Animal Behaviour [June 1986, Updated 2003]. p. 91

8

� Number of Employees

StandardsNeither the USDA nor associations mandate a specific number of zookeepers. TheUSDA simply requires a “sufficient number” to maintain appropriate husbandrypractices, while the AZA and CAZA recommend an “adequate number” to care for theanimals and run programs.

Current PracticeBased upon a survey of other comparably sized zoos, the Zoo appears to have a sufficientnumber of zookeepers. In 2006, the Zoo’s animal-to-keeper ratio was 1:10 for mammals,1:30 for birds, 1:44 for amphibians and reptiles and 1:240 for fishes.12 This compares tothe total average of 1:11 for mammals, 1:60 for birds, 1:85 for amphibians and reptilesand 1:328 for fishes. Note that keeper-to-animal ratios depend upon the species of animalkept. For instance, elephant keepers may have only 4 to 5 animals in their care, whileflamingo keepers could reasonably have 100 or more.

Education

Note that while the associations have education and conservation standards, the USDA isonly concerned with animal care.

� Mission, Plan and Staff

StandardsThree associations require zoos to include education in their mission statements. TheWAZA only recommends it. The AZA and EAZA require zoos to have a writteneducation plan, while CAZA and WAZA only recommend it. All advise zoos to havetrained staff to run education programs.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets some of these standards but not others. The word “education” is not usedin the Zoo’s mission statement – to connect people with wildlife, inspire caring for nature

and advance conservation action, but it is an implied element. The Zoo has severalpolicy documents that guide and shape its education programs.13 However, it has nowritten education plan that includes goals, objectives, strategies or performance measures.Without such a plan, the Zoo cannot accurately assess the impact of its education efforts.Examples of education plans can be found on the AZA’s Resource Center web page.14

Currently, the Zoo employs a Director of Education and has an Education AdvisoryPanel, consisting of 10 education specialists, who help to plan and review the Zoo’seducation programs.

12 San Francisco Zoo, Animal Keeper Report to the Zoo Board’s Finance Committee [February 2006].13 These include San Francisco Zoo’s Four Key Messages [May 2001]; Three Fundamental Criteria for ZooEducation Programs [June 2008]; and Pyramid of Engagement [June 2008].14 <http://www.aza.org/RC/index.html>

9

� Education Programs

StandardsAll the associations advise zoos to offer education programs to a wide variety ofaudiences through a variety of methods, such as publications, exhibit interpretations, on-site presentations, tours, summer camps, etc. The AZA and CAZA advise zoos to stressconservation in programming. The EAZA suggests animal behavior, zoo animalmanagement and variety of life as topics. The WAZA recommends programming for allages and abilities.

Current PracticeThe Zoo appears to meet these standards. Its Education Department offers a total of 22education programs, including 5 youth programs, 4 children’s programs, 3 schoolprograms, 3 toddler programs, 2 adult programs, 2 adult classes, 2 overnights and acommunity access program. Although methods may vary, all of these programs aredesigned to inspire an appreciation and understanding of wildlife, according to the Zoo’sEducation Director.

� Program Evaluation

StandardsAll the associations advise zoos to evaluate their education programs on a regular basisfor effectiveness, content and updating with current scientific information.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. For each education program, evaluation forms are usedto measure participant satisfaction as well as program impact (i.e., conservation-knowledge, attitudes and behavior). This tells the Zoo what is working well and what itshould improve, according to the Zoo’s Education Director. Based upon this feedback,the Zoo can adjust its programs if necessary. Notably, in 2007, the Zoo established anongoing, collaborative partnership with San Francisco State University’s PublicAdministration Program, which conducts in-depth, formal evaluations of educationprograms as requested by the Zoo. A recent evaluation found that the long-term results ofthe Zoo’s Nature Trail Program on its adult alumni are “highly positive.”15

� Audience

StandardsThe AZA advises zoos to have a clear understanding of their audiences’ needs, includingthe needs of under-represented groups and groups with disabilities. The EAZA advisesthem to educate all visitors, while the WAZA recommends that they target various groupsfor focused conservation education.

15 Dr. Gen, S., etal. San Francisco State University, Public Administration Program. San Francisco Zoo Nature Trail:Thirtieth Anniversary Evaluation [July 2007]. p. 3

10

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards but there is room for improvement. Since 1993, the Zoohas surveyed its visitors on a periodic basis to identify their characteristics and attitudesregarding the Zoo. The last survey was conducted by a private market research andconsulting firm in July and August 2007. It showed that the primary reason for visitingthe Zoo was an interest in animals (90%) followed by bringing children (71%).16 Theauthors of the 2007 Master Plan Up-date point out that there is insufficient knowledge ofthe needs or motivations of teenagers in school programs and adults.17 The Zoorecognizes this need. We recommend that it study these groups more closely to gain abetter understanding of their needs.

� Reference Library

StandardsThree associations advise zoos to maintain a reference library appropriate to the size andcomplexity of their institutions. This library should be available to all zoo staff andvolunteers and according to the EAZA, to the public where practical.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. The Zoo has a resource library, which is available to allZoo staff and volunteers, as well as to outside educators by appointment. It is not open tothe public on a drop-in basis because, according to the Zoo, public demand for suchaccess is limited. Plus, the Zoo does not have a full-time staff librarian to operate it on adrop-in basis.

Conservation

� Mission, Plan and Staff

StandardsTwo associations (the AZA and CAZA) require zoos to include conservation in theirmission statements. The AZA requires while the WAZA only recommends that zooshave a written conservation plan. This is similar to the education plan required orrecommended by all the associations. No association requires zoos to employconservation staff. However, the WAZA recommends that where possible zoos hire fieldconservation staff for work in the wild.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets some of these standards but not others. The word “conservation” is usedin the Zoo’s mission statement - to connect people with wildlife, inspire caring for nature

and advance conservation action. It is in the process of developing a writtenconservation plan (akin to an education plan), which is currently under review by theZoo’s Conservation Committee. The Zoo should forward the plan to the Board ofSupervisors for review once it is completed. Lastly, the Zoo employs a full-time Director

16 Morey Group. San Francisco Zoo - Visitor Survey Report [July & August 2007]. p. 1117 2007 Master Plan Up-date. p.15

11

of Animal Care and Conservation to run on-site conservation programs but it has no fieldconservation staff.

� Species Survival Plans

A Species Survival Plan (SSP) is a cooperative population management and conservationplan for a selected species in zoos and aquariums throughout the world.

StandardsThe AZA and EAZA require while the CAZA only recommends that zoos participate inevery SPP that pertains to an animal in their collection.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. It currently participates in over 30 SSP programs,working to conserve species ranging from Madagascan Radiated Tortoise and ReticulatedGiraffes to black rhinos and gorillas.

� Other Programs

StandardsThe AZA requires while the CAZA only recommends that zoos participate in otherwildlife conservation programs. The WAZA encourages zoos to cooperate with the widerconservation community, including wildlife agencies, conservation organizations andresearch institutions.

Current PracticeThe Zoo meets these standards. Currently, four of the Zoo’s animal care staff serve ascoordinators of national population management plans for Marbled Teal (easternEuropean duck), Caracal (African wild cat), Eurasian Eagle Owl and the native SanFrancisco garter snake.

� Program Evaluations

StandardsAll the associations except the CAZA advise zoos to evaluate their conservationprograms on a regular basis. This can be as simple as measuring money spent and/orpeople reached, or as complex as measuring the success of motivating visitors toparticipate in conservation action.

Current PracticeThe Zoo does not meet these standards. Currently, it has no written evaluationprocedures. It should develop and implement some form of regular evaluation of itsconservation efforts. The Zoo recognizes this need. It advised the OLA that it isdeveloping a “conservation audit” of its operations to be implemented in the near future.We recommend that the Zoo forward its audit findings to the Board of Supervisors forreview.

12

FIVE FREEDOMS OF ANIMAL WELFARE

The following compares the San Francisco Zoo’s current animal keeping practices against the“Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare.”18

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain fullhealth and vigor

Each of the animal sections at the Zoo has a set of procedures for the operation of thearea. The OLA reviewed examples of these procedures and found that they containspecies-specific diets and provisions to assure fresh water for animals. Of course,whether the Zoo implements these procedures properly is a different matter and one thatis best suited for a performance audit.

2. Freedom from thermal and physical discomfort by providing an appropriate environmentincluding shelter and a comfortable resting area

The affect of the Zoo’s microclimate on the animals remains an open question. In theBudget Analyst’s 1999 audit, Dr. Joel Parrott, the current Director of the Oakland Zoo,stated, “Why the City of San Francisco chose this location for the old Fleishackker Zoo ishard to understand. The toll that the weather (cool, wind, fog, and salt air) takes on thestructures is mentioned in the accreditation report, as is the potential for the weather’saffect on the animal’s health.” However, he also stated, “The general impression of [Zoo]staff is that the animals acclimate to the climate and do well (even those that are tropicalspecies).” For an explanation of why acclimation is possible, see our discussion about thenormal adaptive range of captive animals under the Space Requirements section. In hisfinal analysis, Dr. Parrott recommended that the Zoo only exhibit animals that can“acclimate to cooler temperatures” or that “originate from cooler climate zones.” TheZoo advised us that it is already doing what Dr. Parrott recommended.

3. Freedom from injury and disease and pain by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment

This freedom really describes an ideal state. Wild animals in captivity, like all animals,get hurt or sick from time to time. This may occur through no fault of zoos andsometimes despite their best efforts to prevent injury and disease. As previously noted, in1999, the Budget Analyst found that veterinary care at the Zoo is “excellent” and thatgeneral care is “good.” It is important to note that the Zoo makes available a handbookon zoonotic diseases to all Zoo staff. This handbook outlines where disease hashistorically been found, the populations it was found in, signs and symptoms of thedisease and what steps were needed to prevent the spread of the disease.

4. Freedom to express most normal patterns of behavior by providing sufficient space, properfacilities and company of the animal’s own kind, and

18 Scott, P.W., etal. UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Zoo Standards Review Group’sRecommendations on Revised Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice [July 1999].

13

5. Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mentalsuffering

These two freedoms require a great degree of objectivity. We therefore believe that anindependent consultant should be hired to determine whether the Zoo keeps animals inexhibits that are large enough to meet their needs (i.e., to walk, run, climb, fly, swim,etc.). Recall that no enclosure will give an animal the exact amount of space it occupiesin the wild, but also that for each particular stress factor (e.g., limited space), each animalhas a “normal adaptive range,” which it can tolerate and react to normally withoutdeveloping stereotypies, such as pacing. The consultant will need to answer some basicquestions. What is the home range of the species in the wild? How does this compare toits current living space? Is there sufficient space to allow the species to express itsnatural behaviors? As discussed earlier, there exists evidence that one of the Zoo’s polarbears is suffering mentally because she may be living outside the limits of her normaladaptive range.

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

The following identifies zoos around the world that have received the majority of their respectiveAssociation of Zoos and Aquariums’ awards for achievement in animal welfare, education orconservation.

Animal welfare Education ConservationPretoria Zoo (S. Africa) Bronx Zoo Calgary Zoo (Canada)San Diego Zoo Chester Zoo (UK) Columbus Zoo

Figure A (below) shows that as a percentage of its total expenses, the San Francisco Zoo’ssupport of animal welfare is slightly higher than the Pretoria Zoo’s (50%) but significantly lowerthan the San Diego Zoo’s (82%).

Figure A

Institution Total Expenses

(2006)

% Animal

Welfare

Pretoria Zoo (S. Africa) $10 million 50%

San Diego Zoo $165 million 82%

San Francisco Zoo $19 million 55%

Sources: Various financial statements

Notes: The SF Zoo’s expenses are for the year ended June 30, 2007

Figures B & C (on the following page) show that the San Francisco Zoo’s support of educationas a percentage of its total expenses is lower than the Bronx Zoo and Chester Zoo’s (both 6%)and that its support of conservation is lower than the Calgary Zoo and Columbus Zoo’s (5% and2% respectively).

14

Figure B


(2006)

% Education

Bronx Zoo $45 million 6%

Chester Zoo (UK) $32 million 6%



Notes: The Bronx Zoo's expenses are for 2005.

Figure C


(2006)

% Conservation

Calgary Zoo (Canada) $23 million 5%

Columbus Zoo $35 million 2%



Notes: The SF Zoo’s 1% does not include staff and other costs

The Zoo may wish to bring its support of animal welfare, education and conservation in line withthe budgets of the above-noted zoos. This alone is, of course, no guarantee that the Zoo willachieve their same successes, but it is likely to improve the Zoo’s programs and services in theseareas.

CONCLUSION

Most of the San Francisco Zoo’s current practices compare favorably against the USDA andassociations’ standards. There are some notable exceptions, however. The biggest involve theZoo’s physical facilities, education planning and evaluation of conservation programming.Therefore, based on our research and analysis, the OLA recommends the following actions:

(1) An independent consultant should be hired to examine the current configurations of theZoo’s African Savanna and Grizzly Gulch exhibits; to report findings regarding theirdesign and operation; and to make specific recommendations for improvement, ifnecessary. This consultant should also determine whether the polar bear demonstrating“stereotypic” behavior and the Zoo’s other animals are living within their “normaladaptive range” (i.e., within conditions they can tolerate and react to normally withoutdeveloping stereotypies); to report finding regarding their physical and mental health; andto make specific recommendations, if necessary.

(2) The Zoo should develop and implement a written education plan with goals, objectives,strategies or performance measures;

(3) The Zoo should establish some form of regular evaluation of its conservation efforts, andfinalize a written conservation plan (akin to an education plan), which is currently underreview by the Zoo’s Board of Directors.

15

APPENDIX A

Bronx Zoo, New York

The Bronx Zoo is a part of a system of urban wildlife parks managed by the nonprofit WildlifeConservation Society. The other parks include the New York Aquarium, Central Park Zoo,Prospect Park Zoo and Queens Zoo.

Awards - Its Education Department is arguably the best in the US. To date, it has received theAZA’s “Education Award” 10 times (more times than any other zoo in the US).

Program Highlights - The Education Department offers 73 programs, including 21 schoolprograms, 12 family programs, 11 teacher workshops, 6 distant learning classes, 5 wildlifetheater productions, 3 adult programs, 3 summer programs, 3 teacher information classes, 3classroom series, a children’s program, a teacher membership program, teaching fellowships,docent-led tours and the Teens For Planet Earth web site.

Budget - In 2005, the Bronx Zoo’s operating expenses totaled $45,260,591. Of this, $2,684,233(6%) was spent on education programs.

Calgary Zoo, Canada

The nonprofit Calgary Zoological Society runs the Calgary Zoo and a conservation center.

Awards - To date, the Calgary Zoo has received the CAZA’s “Conservation Award” 3 times(more times than any other zoo in Canada). This award recognizes an individual or institutionfor achievement in the field of conservation.

Program Highlights - The Calgary Zoo conducts conservation research on black-footed ferrets,burrowing owls, Northern Leopard frogs, Swift foxes, Vancouver Island marmots and whoopingcranes. It also supports field conservation projects. Many are relevant to species it houses. Itcurrently supports 3 projects in North America, 2 in Africa, 2 in Asia and one in South America.Several times a year, it publishes a newsletter where it describes its conservation plans andupdates.

Budget - In 2006, the Calgary Zoo’s annual operating expenses totaled $23,259,000 Canadiandollars (the equivalent amount of US dollars today). Of this, $800,000 (3%) was spent onconservation research and $400,000 (2%) on field projects.

Chester Zoo, United Kingdom

Founded as a “zoo without bars”, the North of England Zoological Society (the “Chester Zoo”)claims to be the UK’s best zoo. Its stated vision is of a diverse, thriving and sustainable naturalworld and its mission is to be a major force in conserving bio-diversity worldwide.

16

Awards - To date, the Chester Zoo has received the British and Irish Association of Zoos andAquariums’ (BIAZA) “Education Award” 11 times (more times than any other zoo in the UK orIreland). This award recognizes innovative and effective education projects.

Program Highlights – Its Education Division offers 21 programs, including 9 for primary schoolsand 14 for secondary schools. Its library with public access houses a collection of books,journals, reports, student projects and conference proceedings. Exhibit signage presentsinformation in an entertaining way, while a team of presenters gives short, snappy informativetalks.

Budget - In 2006, the Chester Zoo’s annual operating expenses totaled 18,636,000 UK pounds(the equivalent of approximately $32 million US dollars today). Of this, £957,000 orapproximately $1.9 million US dollars today (6%) was spent on education programs.

Columbus Zoo, Ohio

Known as the home of Jack Hanna, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium is a leader in wildlifeconservation. It has had success in breeding endangered species, particularly the Westernlowland gorilla.

Awards - To date, the Columbus Zoo has received the AZA’s “International ConservationAward” 4 times (more times than any other zoo in the US) and “North American ConservationAward” 2 times. Both awards recognize exceptional efforts toward habitat preservation, speciesrestoration and support of bio-diversity in the wild.

Program Highlights - The Zoo runs 4 on-site conservation projects. They involve coral,freshwater mussels, Eastern Plains garter snakes and manatees. It also supports fieldconservation projects worldwide. During 2006, it provided $690,000 in conservation grants tomore than 70 projects in 34 countries. Each year, it publishes a report where it details its plansfor and support of conservation projects.

Budget - In 2006, the Columbus Zoo’s operating expenses totaled $35,267,715. Of this,$690,000 (2%) was spent on field projects. Its budget for its on-site projects was unavailable.

Pretoria Zoo, South Africa

The National Zoological Gardens of South Africa (the “Pretoria Zoo”) is a facility of the NationalResearch Foundation (NRF), a government research foundation.

Awards - The African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB) has not honored the PretoriaZoo with any awards. However, the Pretoria Zoo was the first institution to be accredited byPAAZAB in 2001.

Program Highlights - The Pretoria Zoo operates two conservation centers. Its center atLichtenburg breeds endangered species, including white rhino, Pere David’s deer, Cape mountainzebra, scimitar-horned oryx and Arabian oryx. Its center at Mokopane breeds black rhino, roanantelope, tsessebe (savannah and floodplain antelope) and lemurs.

17

Budget - In 2006, the Zoo’s operating expenses totaled 78,478,000 South African rand (theequivalent of approximately $10 million US dollars today). Of this, we assumed that R39,252,000 (50%) or approximately $5 million US dollars of “running costs” representedspending on animal welfare.

San Diego Zoo, California

The nonprofit Zoological Society of San Diego (ZSSD) operates the San Diego Zoo, its WildAnimal Park and the department of Conservation and Research for Endangered Species (CRES).

Awards - While the AZA does not issue an award for animal welfare, we used its “Edward H.Bean Award,” which acclaims the reproductive success of a species, and its “Exhibit Award,”which recognizes excellence in animal display and exhibit design as rough proxies forachievement in animal welfare. To date, the San Diego Zoo has received the Bean Award 7times (only two other zoos have received it more times) and the Exhibit Award 2 times (only theBronx Zoo has received it more times).

Program Highlights - CRES has contributed to captive breeding of giant pandas, including 3births at the San Diego Zoo. Other research and breeding programs at CRES involve theCalifornia condor, several species of Hawaiian birds, the San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike,white rhinoceros, black rhinoceros, Sri Lankan elephants, Caribbean rock iguanas and the Pacificpocket mouse.

Budget - In 2006, the ZSSD’s operating expenses totaled $164,512,000. Of this, we assumedthat $135,079,000 (82%) under the line item for “Exhibition Facility Operations” representedspending on animal welfare.

18

APPENDIX B

TOTAL BUDGET - HISTORICAL COMPARISON

2003 2007 $ Chg From % Chg From

REVENUES AND SUPPORT 2003-2007 2003-2007

Program revenues:1

Admissions $ 3,270,181 $ 4,491,394 $ 1,221,213 37%

Membership dues $ 1,785,168 $ 2,200,326 $ 415,158 23%

Retail commissions $ 883,309 $ 1,371,345 $ 488,036 55%

Retail sales, rides and rentals $ 677,961 $ 1,062,477 $ 384,516 57%

Fund raising and ticketed events $ 539,777 $ 833,691 $ 293,914 54%

Education2 $ 464,670 $ 721,687 $ 257,017 55%

Parking $ 436,472 $ 620,445 $ 183,973 42%

Children's Zoo $ 61,303 $ 70,528 $ 9,225 15%

Lorikeet $ 31,830 $ - $ (31,830) N/A

Total program revenue $ 8,150,671 $ 11,371,893 $ 3,221,222 40%

Other support:

Management fee $ 4,000,500 $ 4,120,000 $ 119,500 3%

Contributions and bequests3 $ 2,151,320 $ 3,461,592 $ 1,310,272 61%

Investment income $ 186,862 $ 629,497 $ 442,635 237%

Other Income $ 47,138 $ 108,579 $ 61,441 130%

Reimbursement from bond proceeds $ 75,187 $ - $ (75,187) N/A

Total support $ 6,461,007 $ 8,319,668 $ 1,858,661 29%

Total revenues and support $ 14,611,678 $ 19,691,561 $ 5,079,883 35%

OPERATING EXPENSES

Program services:

Animals, collections and exhibits $ 7,661,757 $ 9,221,881 $ 1,560,124 20%

Children's Zoo $ 772,567 $ 1,126,253 $ 353,686 46%

Membership services $ 732,987 $ 1,087,147 $ 354,160 48%

Education4 $ 974,022 $ 891,459 $ (82,563) -8.5%

Retail operations $ 727,360 $ 938,650 $ 211,290 29%

Admissions and other program expenses5 $ 866,545 $ 780,761 $ (85,784) -10%

Total program services $ 11,735,238 $ 14,046,151 $ 2,310,913 20%

Supporting services:

General and administrative6 $ 1,697,978 $ 1,797,841 $ 99,863 6%

Fund raising $ 969,609 $ 1,281,717 $ 312,108 32%

Marketing $ 662,899 $ 1,373,362 $ 710,463 107%

Buildings and grounds $ 76,081 $ - $ (76,081) N/A

Interest $ 61,466 $ - $ (61,466) N/A

Depreciation7 $ - $ 203,515 $ 203,515 N/A

Total supporting services $ 3,468,033 $ 4,656,435 $ 1,188,402 34%

Total operating expenses $ 15,203,271 $ 18,702,586 $ 3,499,315 23%

EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND $ (591,593) $ 988,975

SUPPORT OVER PROGRAM AND

SUPPORTING SERVICES

Notes:

1. Program revenues and other support were grouped under support and revenues prior to 2006.

2. The education line item included travel prior to 2006.

3. Contributions and bequests were two separate line items prior to 2006.

4. The 8.5% decrease in education from 2003 to 2007 is the result of a budgeting change, according to the Zoo. Prior to 2004, the KoretAnimal Resource Center was budgeted under education. After 2004, it was budgeted under animals, collections and exhibits.5. Admissions and other program expenses were two separate line items prior to 2006.

6. General and administrative were grouped under general administration prior to 2006.

7. Depreciation was included in various department expenses prior to 2006.

19

APPENDIX C

Organization USDA AZA CAZA EAZA WAZA

Authority Code of FederalRegulations, Title 9 (Part 3,Subpart F)

Accreditation Standards andRelated Policies, 2008Edition

Accreditation ProcessGuide, 2005 Edition

Minimum Standards for theAccomodation and Care ofAnimals in Zoos andAquaria, 2006 Edition;Education Standards; Codeof Practice

Code of Ethics and AnimalWelfare; The World Zooand Aquarium ConservationStrategy

Standards and Policies

Animal Welfare

Veterinary Care Full-time staff veterinarianand veterinary careprograms are required

Full-time staff veterinarian isrecommended

Full-time staff veterinarian isrecommended

Veterinary care is required(through full-time staff orconsulting veterinarian)

Veterinary care is required

Handling of Animals Licensees mustdemonstrate experiencewith and knowledge ofspecies maintained

Keepers should haveknowledge of restraintprocedures for the animalsunder their care

Keepers should haveknowledge of restraintprocedures for the animalsunder their care

Animals to be handled onlyby, or under the supervisionof, competent trained staff

Appropriate husbandrypractices are required

Physical Facilities Housing facilities must bestructurally sound andmaintained in good repair

Exhibits should replicatewild habitats and no singlespecimen exhibits unlessbiologically correct for thespecies involved

AZA standards andpolicies/Enclosures shouldcontain furniture and naturalor man-made shelters

Environment, space andfurniture sufficient to allowsuch exercise as is neededfor the welfare of theparticular species

Areas for animals to retreatand to allow separation ofanimals (eg, cubbing dens)are required

Space Requirements Enclosures must havesufficient space to allownormal posture and socialadjustments with adequatefreedom of movement

Enclosures must be of asize and complexitysufficient to provide for theanimal's physical, socialand psychological wellbeing

No written standards orpolicies

Enclosures to be ofsufficient size as is neededfor the welfare of theparticular species

Exhibits must be of suchsize and volume as to allowthe animal to express itsnatural behaviors

Enrichment Programs No written standards orpolicies

Formal enrichment programis required

Formal enrichment programis recommended(mandatory by 2008)

Provide appropriateenvironmental andbehavioral enrichment

Enclosures must containsufficient material to allowbehavioral enrichment

20


Feeding Species-specific dietsrequired; Food must bewholesome, palatable andfree from contaimination

Animal diets must be of aquality and quantity suitablefor each animal’s nutritionaland psychological needs;Regular testing of diets fornutritional analysis andsuitability recommended

AZA standards andpolicies/Animal foodpreparations must meet alllocal, provincial and federalregulations

Food and drink provided foranimals to be of the nutritivevalue and quantity requiredfor the particular species


Watering If drinking water is notaccessible at all times, itmust be provided as oftenas necessary for the healthand comfort of animals


Drinking water must beavailable to all specimens

Food and drink provided foranimals to be of the nutritivevalue and quantity requiredfor the particular species


Sanitation Excreta must be removedfrom enclosures as often asnecessary to preventcontamination, minimizedisease and reduce odors

Good housekeeping mustbe practiced

Good housekeeping mustbe practiced

Proper standards ofhygiene, both in respect ofthe personal hygiene of thestaff and that of the animalenclosures and treatmentrooms to be maintained


No. of Employees A sufficient number oftrained employees tomaintain the professionallyacceptable level ofhusbandry practices

An adequate number oftrained staff to care for theanimals and to run theinstitution's programs

An adequate number oftrained staff to care for theanimals and to run theinstitution's programs



Education

Mission No written standards orpolicies

Education must be a keyelement in the mission ofthe institution

Education must be anelement in the missionstatement of the institution

The education role of thezoo is to be clearly stated inits written missionstatement

Education should be anelement in the missionstatement of the institution

21


Plan No written standards orpolicies

The institution must have awritten education plan thatmatches current industrystandards and that includesgoals and objectives

The institution should havea written education plan thatmatches current industrystandards, and that includesgoals and objectives(required by 2009)

Must have a writteneducation policy, identifyingeducational componentsand setting out methods bywhich these componentsare directed towards thedifferent sections of thezoo's audience

The institution shouldproduce a written educationpolicy and a strategicdevelopment plan foreducation

Staff No written standards orpolicies

If an education departmentexists, it must be under thedirection of a paid staffperson who is trained orexperienced in educationprogramming

If an education programexists, it must be under thedirection of a paid staffperson who should betrained or have experiencein educational programming

At least one member of staffwithin the institution shouldbe responsible for aprofessional implementationof the education policy.Staff must have sometraining in education

The institution should makea suitably qualified memberof staff responsible fordeveloping and overseeingeducational activities, andshould make sure thattrained staff and/orvolunteers are available

Programs No written standards orpolicies

Programming shouldinclude local/globalconservation issues andtopics, the role of zoos andaquariums in conservation,information on AZA andother conservation-orientedorganizations, as well asinclude ways the institutioncan act as a resource in itscommunity for conservationeducation and relatedissues

Programming shouldinclude local/globalconservation issues andtopics, the role of zoos andaquariums in conservation,information on CAZA andother conservation-orientedorganizations, as well asinclude ways the institutioncan act as a resource in itscommunity for conservationeducation and relatedissues

Educational componentsmight include such topics asanimal behavior, zoo animalmanagement, variety of life,etc. and methods fordelivering educationalprograms might include (acombination of) the exhibitsthemselves, identificationlabels, graphic displays, zooguide books, etc.

Formal education programsdesigned for all ages andabilities are recommended

22


Audience No written standards orpolicies

The institution should havea clear understanding of itsaudience's needs, includingthe needs of under-represented groups andgroups with special abilities


Zoo education should betargeted at the entire zoovisitation and consistentwith the World ZooConservation Strategy

The institution should targetvarious groups for focusedconservation education(e.g., decision makers,business leaders,consumers, parents,teachers, students andchildren)

Reference Library No written standards orpolicies

A reference libraryappropriate to the size andcomplexity of the institutionshould be available to allinstitution staff membersand volunteers

A reference libraryappropriate to the size andcomplexity of the institutionshould be available to allinstitution staff membersand volunteers

A reference libraryappropriate to the size andcomplexity of the zoo shouldbe maintained and madeavailable to all staffmembers, and possibly tothe public where practical


Program Evaluations No written standards orpolicies

Exhibits, interpretiveprograms and othereducation programs shouldbe evaluated on a regularbasis for effectiveness,content and updating withcurrent scientific information

Education programs shouldbe evaluated on a regularbasis for effectiveness,content and updating withcurrent scientific information

The zoo must demonstratethat it is carrying out itseducation policy, byreference to specificprojects, figures ofattendance, evaluationprocedures and research

The institution should use avariety of methods toevaluate the impact of itsconservation education andtraining programs

Conservation

Mission No written standards orpolicies

Conservation must be a keyelement in the mission ofthe institution

Conservation must be anelement in the missionstatement of the institution

No written standards orpolicies, however, membersrecognize that thefurtherance of wildlifeconservation is an importantobjective of EAZA

No written standards orpolicies, however, theinstitution must make clearto the general public that itsmission is one ofconservation

Plan No written standards orpolicies

The institution must have awritten conservationplan/strategy


Promote and supportbiodiversityconservation/Allocateresources to conservationefforts/Engage visitors inconservation issues andprojects

The institution shouldpursue a strategy ofintegrated conservation (ie,integrate all aspects of itswork with conservationactivities)

23


Staff No written standards orpolicies




The institution shouldrecruit, train and supportfield conservation staff

Species Survival Plans No written standards orpolicies

The institution mustparticipate in every SpeciesSurvival Plan that pertainsto an animal in its collection

The institution shouldparticipate in everyCanadian Species SurvivalProgram that pertains to ananimal in its collection

Ensure that the programscomply with theInternational Union forConservation Union/SpeciesSurvival Commission'sReintroduction SpecialistGroup Guidelines


Other Programs No written standards orpolicies

The institution must activelyparticipate in AZA wildlifeconservation programs, aswell as in regional orinternational conservationprograms

The institution shouldactively participate inCAZA's and other wildlifeconservation programs atappropriate levels based onbudget and/or staff size

Members adhere to theWorld Zoo and AquariumConservation Strategy

The institution shouldcooperate with the widerconservation communityincluding wildlife agencies,conservation organizationsand research institutions toassist in maintaining globalbiodiversity

Program Evaluations No written standards orpolicies

Conservation programsshould be evaluated on aregular basis


Regularly evaluate anddocument conservationefforts to demonstrate theiron-going effectiveness andmake that informationavailable

The institution should use avariety of methods toevaluate the impact of itsconservation education andtraining programs

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT - SFBOS.org

Documents